[Guest post by Aaron Worthing; if you have tips, please send them here.]

Clip this away, folks, for this will prove once and for all that Johnson is actually a liar.

Just today The Other McCain noted how easy it is to ignore Charles Johnson. But since Patterico stirred things up, I came across this astonishing item from Johnson.

Apparently he has written at least one piece in the UK’s Guardian about the “haters” in America like Pam Geller. Yeah, you read that right, the Guardian, which he used to refer to as the al Guardian (although to his credit he owns up to that comment). So a few commenters with long memories brought up Johnson’s own use of the term “pancake” when mocking the death of Rachel Corrie. Bear in mind, back in the day he used to make jokes like that all the time. When I made some kind of joke about memorializing her with a breakfast at the International House of Pancakes, I was ripping off borrowing Johnson’s jokes. So a few people brought up those kinds of comments. For instance:

Sacredham

Charles used to refer to Rachel Corrie, a pro-Palestinian “activist” who was crushed by a bulldozer, as “Saint Pancake.” Google for “rachel corrie pancake breakfast.” For him to try to characterize the former tone of his site as the result of too-loose moderation is simply disingenuous.

But Johnson selectively chooses to respond only to Joey100’s comment:

Some of the rhetoric – al Guardian, St. Pancake – has been brought up in this thread to embarass CJ. Maybe he should speak to that.

To which Johnson responded:

First, about the term “St. Pancake” — the simple fact is that I never used this term at LGF, and in fact I have told people many times, when I saw them using it, that I didn’t like it. I even warned some people that continuing to use it would get their accounts blocked. This is a case in which the smear is absolutely, 100% due to the very people you see posting hateful comments directed me in this thread.

Which was appallingly deceptive. I didn’t personally remember the man ever saying those exact words, but to deny one insult and pretend he made no other Rachel Corrie/pancake references was just bull. It was pulling a Bill Clinton, making a statement so deceptive it is in practicality a lie. He apparently has vigorously scrubbed his site of these jokes that used to come all the time, but, um, he missed a spot:

(Note: the highlighting effect there is the result of me selecting words to copy and forgetting to turn that off when I made the screencap.)

Notice the wording: “Indymedia unwittingly imitates Little Green Footballs: Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast” (emphasis added). Now how could they be imitating anything, if LGF had never made Rachel Corrie “pancake” jokes in the first place? Johnson was challenged on this point and he responds:

I made an ironic reference to the use of the term by LGF readers. I didn’t use it myself.

Mmm, yeah, except he didn’t say “our readers.” He said “Little Green Footballs.” And further in the past when other bloggers tried to hold the behavior of his commenters against him, he regularly denied responsibility for his commenters—he claimed he was not responsible for what they say. To this day his site contains this disclaimer:

Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

So which is it, Chuckie boy? But it gets even worse. Let’s remember that he considered the phrase to be so offensive that he claimed that he threatened to ban accounts of people who used that term when he was aware of them. Oh, except he didn’t. For years there was a commenter on his site that went by the handle “St. Pancake.” And Johnson even gave him a hat tip in this post (don’t bother deleting, Chuckie, we have the screen shot). So the claim that he deleted that term was a lie.

“I was such a small fish at the time. I realized I was basically committing blog suicide by going against him. But he was wrong.”
– Pamela Geller, January 2010

It’s interesting how easy it has become to ignore Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. A couple weeks ago, Diary of Daedalus or the Blogmocracy had a post with a graphic showing the decline in LGF’s traffic since Johnson began his mad purge of commenters who didn’t cooperate with his site’s leftward shift. And I would have blogged about that, but why bother? Nobody cares about LGF anymore.

You’ve been using them? They believe in communism. They believe and have called for a revolution. You’re going to have to shoot them in the head. But warning, they may shoot you.
They are dangerous because they believe. Karl Marx is their George Washington. You will never change their mind. And if they feel you have lied to them — they’re revolutionaries. Nancy Pelosi, those are the people you should be worried about.

You will recall that after the 9/12 March on Washington in 2009, Nancy Pelosi gave a press conference warning about rhetoric that “created a climate in which violence took place” in San Francisco in the late 1970s:

And what Beck was trying to say on his June 2010 program was that Democratic leaders, who believed they could co-opt and use the radicalism of the Left for their political advantage, should worry more about extremism from their own allies than from the conservative opposition. You don’t have to believe that assertion — or be a Beck fan — to see that what the LGF post did was to twist Beck’s meaning into the exact opposite of what Beck intended.

What’s stunning is how easily Johnson — or rather one of his second-banana henchpeople, “Conservative Moonbat” — was gulled into that error. The Beck transcript was available online the whole time. The transcript was located by the third commenter on the LGF post and the fourth commenter observed:

So he says that Dems will have to shoot left-wing radicals “in the head”

[…]

Charles Johnson has cut himself off from conservatives and made them his enemies, without actually bothering to declare himself a liberal. Liberals were happy to celebrate Johnson’s defection from the Right, but the one-time dividend of a New York Times profile hasn’t yielded any lasting benefit.

No blog is an island. If you aren’t linked by other blogs, you can’t increase your readership. That which does not grow will eventually begin to die. When Johnson decided to make war on erstwhile blog allies, he also cut himself off from their readers, and without a readership — beyond the dwindling cult of sycophants — he has become irrelevant.

Related

150 Comments on “Patterico and The Other McCain notice McDumdum’s hypocrisy on the St. Pancake issue”

“No blog is an island. If you aren’t linked by other blogs, you can’t increase your readership. That which does not grow will eventually begin to die. When Johnson decided to make war on erstwhile blog allies, he also cut himself off from their readers, and without a readership — beyond the dwindling cult of sycophants — he has become irrelevant.”

I didn’t do anything important, my Vanity Fair profile come out within days of a New York Times profile that got way more attention and I’m pretty sure LA Times did one around the same time. All I did was annoy Pam Geller and the others. And make some money, lol.

So *this* is what you sound like when orgasming. Disturbing, though might do well in porn. A more literate, and metaphysical, version of the “Droppin’ Loads” dude. If you ever get prolonged writer’s block, think about it.

Notice the wording: “Indymedia unwittingly imitates Little Green Footballs: Rachel Corrie Pancake Breakfast” (emphasis added). Now how could they be imitating anything, if LGF had never made Rachel Corrie “pancake” jokes in the first place? Johnson was challenged on this point and he responds:

I made an ironic reference to the use of the term by LGF readers. I didn’t use it myself.

Mmm, yeah, except he didn’t say “our readers.” He said “Little Green Footballs.” And further in the past when other bloggers tried to hold the behavior of his commenters against him, he regularly denied responsibility for his commenters—he claimed he was not responsible for what they say. To this day his site contains this disclaimer:

Comments are open and unmoderated, and do not necessarily reflect the views of Little Green Footballs.

Ah, I see Patterico’s moving straight to stalker talking points now. Through obsessive searching of years-old comments, they’ve discovered that I once deleted a comment in which I (gasp!) used the term “Saint Pancake.”
I had to look up the comment in the DB because I don’t remember it, and the reason is simple – the timestamp shows it was deleted very soon after I posted it, probably because I didn’t like it and regretted using it. I say “probably” because this was so long ago and so completely insignificant I have no memory of it at all. I didn’t “lie” about it – I didn’t remember it.
I’d say this is pathetic how they’re reaching back for every tiny comment I ever made to find a smear, but if they want to waste their time I say go for it. And it’s ironic that the people who are most enthusiastically promoting the smear are exactly the same people who were banned for using it constantly — and for much worse.

And I definitely don’t remember specifically seeking out this particular comment. And I especially don’t remember deleting it in the same intellectually lazy and half assed manner in which I “analyze” today’s events. Why? Because I am a douchebag of epic proportions. There has never been a larger receptacle of douching liquid than I.

That’s right, I am Charles Johnson, and I capture and store vaginal backwash. And I love it!

What a fucking douche. WAHHHHHHHH somebody made me look like the fucking douchebag moron that I am! I’ll show them! I’ll reveal personal information that if someone revealed about me I’d claim it as a death threat!

Ah, I see Patterico’s moving straight to stalker talking points now. Through obsessive searching of years-old comments, they’ve discovered that I once deleted a comment in which I (gasp!) used the term “Saint Pancake.”I had to look up the comment in the DB because I don’t remember it, and the reason is simple – the timestamp shows it was deleted very soon after I posted it, probably because I didn’t like it and regretted using it. I say “probably” because this was so long ago and so completely insignificant I have no memory of it at all. I didn’t “lie” about it – I didn’t remember it.I’d say this is pathetic how they’re reaching back for every tiny comment I ever made to find a smear, but if they want to waste their time I say go for it. And it’s ironic that the people who are most enthusiastically promoting the smear are exactly the same people who were banned for using it constantly — and for much worse.

No ironic, since I never did it, and as I pointed out, there are plenty who are still there.

Here is some kind of veiled threat from Reggie old boy for yis. Lets see your Web Foo Reggie, ay what old boy?!

285 Reginald Perrin Fri, Jan 21, 2011 1:09:42pm 0
down
up
report

re: #241 Charles
He who laughs last, laughs best.
The stalkers may soon be getting more attention than they desire. The clever part of my plan was simple, take the politics out and expose their insanity using humor.
They have littered the internet with hundred of hilarious comment, it will be easy to expose the Tampa mama’s boy, who fancies himself as being an internet warrior on a divine mission.

The odd thing about Reggie- He’s always hatching “plans” and stuff, like a real playa, but I’ve been reading LGF for 8 years, and Reggie has never registered as a blip on my radar screen. Never even noticed his nic till I started coming here, lol.

song_and_dance_man :
Funny how the Foster Kid is willing to, and does, look up the comments, or personal info of others from years ago, to smear us, but anyone doing as he does makes us stalkers.
Who would have known back in the day when he rarely commented that he was such a hypocritical idiot?

Who would have known how intellectually bereft and what a piss poor debater he actually was?

Whatever :
It’s also not ironic, because those of us who did use that phrase aren’t apologizing for it. This is about exactly one thing: Chuck’s denial that he said it, not using it itself.
Chuck Johnson is a St. Pancake denier.

The nitwits have tweeted that about 5,000 times. You’d think they’d found a new species or something.

It’s kind of cool that they have such awe of me, actually, to believe that I remember every single comment I’ve ever posted at LGF, even one-sentence comments posted 8 years ago. I must be pretty smart, and diabolical too.

8 years ago Charles rarely posted comments in the threads. He had to be making a special point out of something for him to write anything in a thread.

“8 years ago Charles rarely posted comments in the threads. He had to be making a special point out of something for him to write anything in a thread.”

Exactly, and if you read that particular thread and the ones right around it, it becomes crystal clear that Charles was in the very thick of the contest over what to call Corrie.
In fact, it appears that the commenters were using “Flat Bitch” just as much until CJ personally settled on “St. Pancake.”
HE OWNS IT.

It’s kind of cool that they have such awe of me, actually, to believe that I remember every single comment I’ve ever posted at LGF, even one-sentence comments posted 8 years ago. I must be pretty smart, and diabolical too.

No, obviously you’re not very smart at all, given how sloppy you cover your tracks dude. The point was you categorically denied ever having used the term yourself, finding it distasteful, yet in context had no problems at all dropping the term.

Then you block all third party archiving sites (Craven. Coward) so that no one can tell for sure when the comment was really scrubbed. Which by the way was something you roasted other people for doing, wasn’t it? Right?

So let me get this straight. He didn’t remember saying it, didn’t remember deleting it, and didn’t remember the subsequent YEARS of other lizards using it without any hint of disapproval from him. ‘Cause that’s what he had us believe in that emphatic “happy to address it” Guardian comment.

It isn’t that *isn’t worth the effort,* it is that you can’t defend your position because you’ve always maintained the moral high ground by saying you NEVER used the term. You’ve been presented with proof to the contrary despite your lazy ass scrubbing efforts, and having this put before you, you try to excuse it away by saying it is only one comment made years ago.

Another important note: If you guys remember the Battle of Al-Guardian™ , the subject of “St. Pancake” overtook the subject of Geller, and CJ addressed it in a few comments (there may have been more, but there were some “removed” ones).

At one point, Johnson was so confident that he had scrubbed all the evidence that he actually taunted captdiggs for his inability to find were he used “St. Pancake”:

Same pattern. Charles has it both ways. By posting a popular dem dog whistle,(that is wildly mischaracterized) and withholding outright comment, he is able to avoid accusations of specific misrepresentations, while still causing people to believe those misrepresentations.

Yuck.

He is not making a particular point, but he will post those things that tend to make the particular point that he is not making.

I have lgf on “filter”.
I do not like to look there.
This is not hyperbole.